Rules that outsource

[Callan S.]

Hi all,

I was having a PM conversation with Mike Holmes and it prompted me to check where I am relative to everyone else on the perceptions of certain mechanics and their requirements, which are asked for below.

I'm interested in the difference between two types of rule, which are just easier to give examples of, rather than ineptly describe.

The first is something like "to climb the wall you need to roll, add your Y(determined by system) and get over X(determined by user/GM)"
The other is "when it's inappropriate for a hero to fail a roll he shouldn't be forced to make it" (Note: The latter is from hero quest, described that way by Mike Holmes. It isn't supposed to be system specific, I just wanted to declare the source.)

My first question is asking for general perceptions of just how much each of the above examples outsources to the user, asking them to use certain rules of their own to respond in turn (written or unwritten).

The second; What does everyone think/feel about outsourcing/asking the user to fill in a blank in the system?

The third; do you think such outsourced work is managed by the users at a rule/system like level, even when its unwritten or even unspoken between them?

Note: Sometimes on the Internet when someone asks questions about a particular subject it's because they're thinking 'OMG, this is so bad'. This isn't one :) so replies don't have to counter such an attitude.

Thanks for your time. :)

[james_west]

Hello Noon -

This is a very interesting question, and it's actually quite central to RPG design (so central, hard to believe it hasn't been discussed before; it probably has, and I missed it.) My belief is that outsourcing is functionally inevitable at some level, but at a broader level, deciding what sorts of things are to be outsourced is just about the most important design decision you can make, and has more effect on the feel of a game than any other design component.

For instance, for the first couple of decades of RPG design, scene framing was 'outsourced' in essentially 100% of game designs. A lot of the newer indie-inspired games have aggressive scene framing rules, which drastically changes feel of the game. Other rules one never thinks about are always outsourced, by tradition. For instance, most books never say who it is that rolls the dice; this may seem unimportant, since they're random, but rolling dice produces a 'feel' of empowerment.

In short; there are too many decisions to make to effectively address all of them in a rules set. Which ones you decide to address, and which ones you outsource, is neither merely a matter of completeness, nor a trivial decision.

- James

[Callan S.]

Thanks for the excellent reply, James!

That was a good wrap up of important points! And your suggestion that outsourcing is functionally inevitable, resounds with me. Merely for discussions sake I'd like to add that games like chess or monopoly don't outsource at all, while perhaps all (one can never be sure) traditional pen and paper RPG's do outsource to verying degrees. It could almost be used to help define what a traditional P&P RPG is.

Another angle is, the more you outsource, the more the RPG is just a reflection of the end user group. So the more you outsource (turn the dial up), the more its a cous cous RPG, a reflection of the end users and their own qualities. This might be a unfair example, but awhile ago someone on RPG.net was saying how well the hackmaster honour rules work, and how they improve the game. I couldn't quite get the point across to him that, although there are lots of bonuses and penalties, the task of determining what is honour or whatever is outsourced to him. So what was a stand out feature for him was really nothing in substance, the actual substance came from himself.

I'm also really interested in how people think outsourcing is handled by end users. Some people will assert what is 'fair', for example, is pretty easy to determine. Thus outsourcing to the users to determine what is fair is no big deal to do. In other words they design on the premise certain values are easy to concisely evaluate, so outsourcing them is just fine. I have to wonder if this is responsible.

On a side note, I tried to do a search for topics on this but the best word I could think of was outsourcing and there was nothing relevant.

[M. J. Young]

James is correct; you have to rely on the judgment of someone at the table for a great deal of game play, so you might as well make that clear up front in your rules.

We did in Multiverser.

I probably wrote two pages on surprise situations, yet in the end what they amounted to was, Characters cannot be surprised if they are obviously expecting something like this to happen at this moment, and the rest was merely intended to help determine what kinds of things demonstrate that. Obviously, if you're staring at someone who is wearing a gun and they gradually draw it out, aim it at you, and shoot, you are unlikely to be "surprised" in the sense that you can't react; if they have the ability to do that faster than you can see it happen, then you might be surprised. If you're watching someone walk toward you across a plain, you're not going to be surprised by their arrival. These are common sense: when do you roll to see when someone is surprised? When they might be. How do you know whether they might be? Use your head; they might be if they didn't expect this to happen.

The game has a lot of advice about when to roll skill checks--don't do it if it's routine; don't do it if it's well within the character's ordinary ability; don't do it if it's practice. In essence, the answer is, roll a skill check if the skill check matters, and not otherwise.

Multiverser makes everything you could imagine doing a skill. Can you sit up? There's a skill for that--but you don't roll it unless there's a reason to think you can't do it here, like the gravity is strong or fluctuating, or you've been drugged or injured, or there's someone sitting on top of you. Can you walk? There's a skill for that, but again, there have to be circumstances that make a roll necessary before you do it.

And because those "circumstances" that might matter are two vast in variety to list or describe, it is up to the referee to decide when the circumstances demand a roll.

We make no bones about relying on the wisdom and experience of our referees; we say it more than once in the book. You can't run an RPG without it.

Interestingly, I read something somewhere just recently about the problems of moral issues being addressed when preteens are running games for preteens and none of them have any life context for providing realistic results of choices. I'd never thought of that, because I was a married twenty-something before I ever heard the words "role playing game". I think, though, that that might have some value here, in that you probably can't design a game that doesn't assume the players, or at least the referee, has some core notion of what life is like on which to base his decisions.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

But is that a suggestion that; it's a given that you have to do this outsourcing, it doesn't need to be thought about further because there is a reason its needed? And that reason relies on the idea there are so many opportunities for dice rolling that it overwhelms us and we have to outsource in fluctuating amounts, to the GM?

I mean, that sort of thing can be addressed. I'd insert a complicated example here, but that would drift things.

I also have to declare a dislike for assertions like 'Well, were handing it over to the GM but it's so clear what matters, that its just like our rules are referring to rules in another book'. I'm not against the hand over, it's the suggestion that, once the GM reads the guidelines he would act like any other GM who read them. And even here, I'm not against individual tastes in groups. What I'm against is how misleading the implications of something like 'its clear what matters and what doesn't' as if that will mean the system isn't handing over the reigns.

I don't think it's deliberate on anyone's part to mislead (as I believe is happening). I think it's more of a tradition, like the inclusion of large combat systems are a tradition. But the clear implication is that 'Look, what is X and what isn't X is so clear there is no hand over of here. With Y amount of guidelines, the GM will simply give the same result that you could have gotten out of a bunch of rules, but a bunch so big it's not practical to print.'

But the thing is, X isn't clear, ever. Not with guidelines. Never (Okay, arguable point (Ironically, IMO), but for the rest of this post hypothetically say it's true). When we turn to Bob, who has read all the guidelines and has 20 years of RPG experience, to ask what X is, we are asking Bob what X is, not the system. 'Asking' can be declaring an action that then needs to be evaluated by Bob to see if it matters enough for a roll, or not.

Now I'll just mute my point here by taking it from a binary scale to a dial system. I'll say that the more you outsource, the more your asking Bob something, not the system something. The broader the implications of X, the more your turning up that dial.

And what is wrong with asking Bob something? Nothing, no problems there at all.

The problem is, if I'm asking Bob/the more I'm asking Bob, why am I bothering with this system at all? And if I'm referring to the 'book of Bob' more than I'm referring to the RPG in front of me, WHY is that RPG A: Undermining it's original purchase, with this type of design (designs with the dial turned up high)? B: Asserting that X is so clear that referring to Bob to determine X isn't undermining its relevance?

Is it trying to convince me? Is it to tilt me over into a state of illusion, in case I was unsure if this was the case and a few assertions would help me make my mind up for me?

After all, I could be wrong in the evaluation that Bob determining X, Y and Z (all, for examples sake, have large implications in the system) means I'm dealing with Bob and not the system.

Then again, it could be differing opinions on what elements have large implications in the system. For example, Bob might determine when a +1/-1 modifier is applied to a roll, here and there. The implications of this aren't zero, yet nor is it really high. Something else might be rated by one person as having as much system implication as that, while another might think it has quite a lot of implication within the system.

However, I get the feeling that design tradition in RPG's says: If you put in a bunch of guidelines, it reduces the effect of out sourcing decisions on X to Bob, keeping the system relevant (ie, it was worth buying and learning the system, rather than just sitting down with Bob and free forming).

IMO, it's not good enough.

Of course, there are all sorts of things that have to be managed, like whether you have to make a skill roll to walk down the street. However, the traditional default of leaving that decision up to the GM is rather unsatisfactory, in my opinion (in terms of learning time and money). Particularly if you begin to scrutinise 'all these things have to be managed' itself.

This got too long. Long is bad on Internet forums, if your not going with the current.

The short form of it is: Be careful of how much you outsource, as guidelines are no protection against that out sourcing causing your creation become text, rule and dice heavy free form.

[james_west]

Noon,

Two issues here; decisions about what to outsource, and whether or not you're upfront about the decisions you've made (which seems to be the topic you're attempting to address.)

As to this second issue, I think that, especially in simulationist systems, it has been held as an ideal that -nothing- should be outsourced. The game's rules should be the equivalent of natural law; they work on their own, with no interpretation required.  Trying to meet the ideal, however, has been the RPG designer's philosopher's stone. By this, I mean something that consumes an inordinate amount of time and energy, and is inherently impossible.

Interestingly, a lot of the new games handle the outsourcing problem by making up explicit rules for -who- gets to make the decision. Universalis is pretty much nothing -but- outsourcing, with complex rules for who gets to decide what, when. Others have die rolls that determine the outcome of broad situations, and all the details get backfilled, with the narration provided by a person specified by game mechanic.

I suppose I'm really more interested in the first issue; decisions about what to outsource. And what is it that we're outsourcing routinely that we haven't even thought of. Unfortunately, I can't right at the moment think of anything clever to say about it ...

- James

[Valamir]

This is a very interesting thread for me, because the phrasing of the initial topic is almost completely reversed from they way I'd have phrased it (if I'd thought to use the outsourcing analogy).

See, I see the primary responsibility of the game to lie with the players and would think of using the rules as "outsourceing".

A company has some task they want to accomplish
A gaming group has some roleplaying they want to accomplish

A company may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves
A gaming group may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves

A company searches and evaluates several different vendors until they find and hire one that meets their needs.
A gaming group searches and evaluates several different games until they find and buy one that meet their needs.


So from my perspective, every time you stop game play to look something up...THAT'S the moment where outsourcing occurs.  When the gamers at the table go outside the game group to get the result they want.

[Mike Holmes]

The short form of it is: Be careful of how much you outsource, as guidelines are no protection against that out sourcing causing your creation become text, rule and dice heavy free form.

I completely agree. Does that surprise you? Or was that what you were expecting from me? I'd be interested to know.

That all was, in fact, my point in our personal exchange. The thing is that RPGs are about exploration, and to have that, as you point out, you need to do what you're calling outsourcing. You've made that point repeatedly and well. And I'm in total agreement that text does a poor job of enforcement in play - you can't count on it primarily to deliver the overall agenda. But two points here:

1. As long as the rest of the system is solid, outsourcing will be informed by the rest of the system. That is, what the oursourcing is about, and other mechanics in play will help guide the outsourcer.
2. Each group's agenda is unique to it. So, yes, this is a point of danger in that the GM could move the agenda to someplace that the group didn't like here. But given number one above, a strong agenda displayed in the rest of the system, this doesn't happen often. Moreover, this "wiggle room" that's provided allows the GM to "micro-drift" the overall agenda to the group's own precise agenda.

So, really, these are points of opportunity when put in the right place. For example, the rule that I quoted was from Hero Quest. Differing uses of it allow some groups to play a little more sim, and others a little more nar (to point to the GNS components of the agenda as an example). And it doesn't seem to cause any friction that I've heard of.

The point is that, all games have these places in them, and, you're right; as designers we absolutely need to be very careful where we place them. I, for one, am for reducing them dramatically.

Universalis is an interesting case, because basically what it does is simply to organize collaborative storytelling play such that it dumps any conflicts right into the social contract to resolve, using the mechanics only as a means of organization again. As such, as pointed out above, everything is outsourced, but in a coherent way for absolutely everything. There are no points in Universalis that you're not using the rules as written - even when changing the rules.

Mike

[Callan S.]

Noon,

Two issues here; decisions about what to outsource, and whether or not you're upfront about the decisions you've made (which seems to be the topic you're attempting to address.)

As to this second issue, I think that, especially in simulationist systems, it has been held as an ideal that -nothing- should be outsourced. The game's rules should be the equivalent of natural law; they work on their own, with no interpretation required.  Trying to meet the ideal, however, has been the RPG designer's philosopher's stone. By this, I mean something that consumes an inordinate amount of time and energy, and is inherently impossible.

Dead on. Yet ironically those examples I was thinking of giving, the ones that detailed of ways of getting around high dial outsourcing, involved amounts of abstraction which would put off a hard core simulationist. I'm still leery of suggesting any, as the arguement would shift as to their worth, rather than the worth of the goal they're aiminng for.

Interestingly, a lot of the new games handle the outsourcing problem by making up explicit rules for -who- gets to make the decision. Universalis is pretty much nothing -but- outsourcing, with complex rules for who gets to decide what, when. Others have die rolls that determine the outcome of broad situations, and all the details get backfilled, with the narration provided by a person specified by game mechanic.

Ah, now that's interesting! So if its all about outsourcing it's like just freeforming with bob. But with the management of who is outsourced, it not like just freeforming with Bob, it's like like free forming with Bob, Joe, Chris and Robbo. Well, not so much with each, but with a sort of hybrid of all of them tied together (it's sort of like that, isn't it, everyone can pitch in with points to affect stuff?)

Wow, that's really interesting, because really that validates the rules that exist far more, because their purpose isn't to outsource to determine something, its really to create a hybrid of ideas to explore, and then you interact with/ask that hybrid. That is NOT something that's easy to do without a system (not easy like freeforming just with Bob, is). Unless I'm getting the wrong handle on this, the system is taking advantage of what outsourcing is good for, rather than using it as a crutch (like some systems do, IMO). I wish I had a credit card...it'd make buying these interesting games simple.

I suppose I'm really more interested in the first issue; decisions about what to outsource. And what is it that we're outsourcing routinely that we haven't even thought of. Unfortunately, I can't right at the moment think of anything clever to say about it ...

- James

The 'outsourcing routinely' worries me. It ties in with the recent sacred cow posts, IMO.

Anyway, I hope I don't appear against outsourcing. I'm just against poor application of it. I'll have to figure out something (perhaps) clever to say at some point soon.

[Callan S.]

This is a very interesting thread for me, because the phrasing of the initial topic is almost completely reversed from they way I'd have phrased it (if I'd thought to use the outsourcing analogy).

See, I see the primary responsibility of the game to lie with the players and would think of using the rules as "outsourceing".

A company has some task they want to accomplish
A gaming group has some roleplaying they want to accomplish

A company may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves
A gaming group may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves

A company searches and evaluates several different vendors until they find and hire one that meets their needs.
A gaming group searches and evaluates several different games until they find and buy one that meet their needs.


So from my perspective, every time you stop game play to look something up...THAT'S the moment where outsourcing occurs.  When the gamers at the table go outside the game group to get the result they want.

That's a really fresh perspective on it! Thanks! :)

But really what I'm talking about is where the game the group has outsourced to, then itself goes and outsources back to them but tries to suggest that it isn't. In doing so it's not meeting the needs the group got it for, the group itself is meeting those needs, while the book assures them that really it's the one forfilling their needs. (then again, ignorance is bliss?)

In the company analogy, the vendor they hire then goes onto their worksite and pulls away the company workers (X amount of them, depending on how high the dial is turned) and gets them to do the work the corporation hired the vendor to do.

[Valamir]

I see your point.  Actually, I think we're saying very similiar things.

I think the problem you're identifying from a game claiming its in charge and then in reality punting back to the players is a direct result of game designers not writing the game from the perspective I identified.

In other words instead of trying to grab all of the authority, then realizing that no set of rules could possibly cover everything and throwing it back to the players, a better way of writing the rules (IMO) would be to assume that the players are in charge and will call on the rules as needed (i.e. outsource to the rules)

I would stress at this point, however, that I'm distinctly not talking about "transparency" or "rules that stay out of the way" or any of that sort of thing.  So, not a situation where players play for as long as they can without rolling and then "resorting" to the rules only when the must.

For instance the rules for My Life with Master are front and center.  There is no possible way to concieve of those rules as being "invisible" they are very visible and very much at the forefront of every scene.  In that sense its a "rules heavy" game (a term that frequently gets used when the party really means "rules frequent" game).

However, the rules are very much written from the perspective of the human beings playing the game being in charge, and the rules are very clearly in the service of those players.

Hmmm....I'm not sure if I'm actually being clear or murky here...did that make any sense?

[Callan S.]

Mike Holmes: I am not surprised you agree. I could see I was working from some of the same principles as you, but I just seemed to keep pressing you 'system doesn't matter' button, without really meaning to.

I will say that with the outsource dial down low, both point one and two are correct and healthy, barring any sociopath GM. And with the dial up high, in point one the system will be overwhelmed and in point two Bobs agenda will be so strong at best he'll be a benevolent dictator.

But given that you mention your working on reducing outsourcing dramatically, I'd say this is not news to you at all. :)

[coxcomb]

Great points all!

I would put forth that the appropriate amount of "outsourcing" varies by system--and that the variance often corresponds to the degree to which metarules are implemented in the system.

This is particularly true of systems that are very balance oriented. When something is outsourced to me while running, say, 7th Sea, I often feel left out to dry--no cohesive metarules. In the same situation in, say, the Hero System, I have enough metarules to go on.

The above applies to outsourced handling of stated actions. What this thread seems to be mostly focused on is a trickier matter: outsourcing of judgement calls. I don't know if any amount of rule coverage can really help a GM determine when it is appropriate to call for a roll, rather than just roleplay a scene. At best, a system can mitigate the consequences.

[Callan S.]

I see your point.  Actually, I think we're saying very similiar things.

I think the problem you're identifying from a game claiming its in charge and then in reality punting back to the players is a direct result of game designers not writing the game from the perspective I identified.

In other words instead of trying to grab all of the authority, then realizing that no set of rules could possibly cover everything and throwing it back to the players, a better way of writing the rules (IMO) would be to assume that the players are in charge and will call on the rules as needed (i.e. outsource to the rules)
*snip*

Yes, dead on! But one would have to be very careful that 'calling on the rules as needed' didn't end up in design as 'throwing it back to the players'. Possibly something like 'use these rules when your group wants to, not when someone judges that events in the game world call for the use of these rules' would help avoid it. Although I'm not sure I like how optional that makes system use sound. What other architecture options (or other spins on this one) are there for this?

Edit: Would the term 'back sourcing', as in out sourcing back to the people who outsourced to you in the first place, be a better one, do you think?

[Mike Holmes]

This is particularly true of systems that are very balance oriented. When something is outsourced to me while running, say, 7th Sea, I often feel left out to dry--no cohesive metarules. In the same situation in, say, the Hero System, I have enough metarules to go on.

The above applies to outsourced handling of stated actions. What this thread seems to be mostly focused on is a trickier matter: outsourcing of judgement calls. I don't know if any amount of rule coverage can really help a GM determine when it is appropriate to call for a roll, rather than just roleplay a scene. At best, a system can mitigate the consequences.

Welcome on board.

You're contradicting yourself. That is, I totally agree with the Hero System idea you present, I too know better what to do when in that sort of game. OTOH, in Hero System, you are charged with deciding when to roll. It may not seem like it to you, but think about it - do you have players roll to see if characters tie their shoes correctly in Hero? No. Why not? Because the system informs you about when it's appropriate. This is what I was saying above. When a system is well designed overall, the "ambiguities" in the system aren't so ambiguous. You do have a guidline.

And that's what we're talking about cases where its ambiguous as to how to use the arbitrary authority ceded to the GM (or any player, really). Yes, this is bad design. Leaving gaps like this can really damage the ability of the text to deliver a coherent creative agenda, and leave a GM feeling like he's left blowing in the wind.

But my point is that you can't tell if a system has enough support by just looking at the rule in question. It's part of an overall system, and the question of support can only be answered by looking at the whole to see if the participant is informed in the activity or not.

Mike